Cyclists should do a theory test!

ezra_pound wrote: »

No. But alcohol is a recreational drug.

But they're not really the same thing .....

rubadub wrote: »

They are both recreational drugs, 1 E would be a full dose, so you could compare 1/6th or 1/8th of an E to a single pint. Most sensible doctors would consider alcohol the worse of the 2, if it was in fact MDMA you were taking.

The problem with your logic (or lack thereof) is that you simply cannot compare the two ......... for obvious reasons.

rubadub

MadDog76 wrote: »

But they're not really the same thing .....

neither is heroin or crack cocaine, iboprufen or aspirin, LSD or magic mushrooms. I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

If a thread started off in the reverse of many here, "I am a cyclist and I cannot understand why motorists keep breaking lights" I would expect a huge amount of people to come in and say "ehhh, cyclists break lights all the time too, you hypocrite, can you really not get your head around it, are you that fcuking stupid?".

And then you would get lads like yourself still saying "shut up you, this thread is about motorists, not cyclists, now back on topic".

Its a mind-dumbling pathetic dodgy tactic.

MadDog76 wrote: »

The problem with your logic (or lack thereof) is that you simply cannot compare the two ......... for obvious reasons.

They CAN be compared and are frequently compared by medical professionals, for obvious reasons. Christ almighty, get your head out of the fcuking sand...

rubadub wrote: »

neither is heroin or crack cocaine, iboprufen or aspirin, LSD or magic mushrooms. I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

If a thread started off like many here do, "I am a cyclist and I cannot understand why motorists keep breaking lights" I would expect a huge amount of people to come in and say "ehhh, cyclists break lights all the time too, you hypocrite, can you really not get your head around it, are you that fcuking stupid?".

And then you would get lads like yourself still saying "shut up you, this thread is about motorists, not cyclists, now back on topic".

Its a mind-dumbling pathetic dodgy tactic.

Anybody who tries to say heroin or crack is in the same vein as vodka or beer has already lost touch with reality .......

Maximus Alexander

rubadub wrote: »

Maybe they have actually bothered their fucking hole to read up about the subject and feel they are safer without a helmet while commuting.

There's not really any need to be so arsey about it.

rubadub

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

There's not really any need to be so arsey about it.

there is no need to infer people are stupid or idiots or somewhat mentally deficient with phrases like "What is going on in these peoples' minds?"

rubadub

MadDog76 wrote: »

Anybody who tries to say heroin or crack is in the same vein as vodka or beer has already lost touch with reality .......

yeah, those lads in the lancet who compare them must be clueless. I would hold the opinion of MadDog76 in much higher regard than that of Professor David Nutt...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet

The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is one of the world's oldest and best known general medical journals,[1] and has been described as one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world

Maximus Alexander

rubadub wrote: »

there is no need to infer people are stupid or idiots or somewhat mentally deficient with phrases like "What is going on in these peoples' minds?"

It's a reasonable question, since I had no idea what was going on in their minds. Some other folks here have explained in a more... measured fashion.

steamengine wrote: »

Do you need a Masters in experimental Physics and read a thesis on whether Light consists of waves or particles before you switch on your lights at home at night ?

Yes, that's exactly the point I was making. Thanks for confirming it.

steamengine wrote: »

Everyone is out of step - really ?

Everyone who says 'Oh everyone should wear helmets and they should be mandatory' is way out of step with evidence - that's for sure.

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Faceplants are way more common. No helmet to protect against those. I've never had a friend come off and land on their head. But I know a few who have come off over the handlbars onto their face, or face-first into the side of a van / car when it has pulled out in front of them.

Full face protection is the only way forward....something like Bane in batman would probably work

Perhaps something along the lines of a hurling helmet would fit the bill nicely then, helmets will evolve like everything else. I've had my head slapped off concrete and therefore have no hesitation in avoiding that sensation and pain by wearing a helmet. That was not even at a level to induce concussion.

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly the point I was making. Thanks for confirming it.

Thought so alright :rolleyes:

Everyone who says 'Oh everyone should wear helmets and they should be mandatory' is way out of step with evidence - that's for sure.

Including the RSA, not a lot of difference between recommending helmet use and it being mandatory. So the RSA have it wrong too - really !

Everyone out of step except my Johnny !

steamengine wrote: »

Including the RSA, not a lot of difference between recommending helmet use and it being mandatory. So the RSA have it wrong too - really !

So you don't see much difference between the HSE encouraging people to stop smoking, and the Government banning smoking and making it illegal then?

diomed

It is almost a mantra with car drivers
"cyclists break red lights"
"cyclists break red lights"
"cyclists break red lights"

This thread is the same flavour.
"Cyclist don't know the Rules of the Road and a theory test will prove it, unlike us impeccably behaved car drivers."

But it is still drivers who kill cyclists.

Jawgap

steamengine wrote: »

Thought so alright :rolleyes:

Including the RSA, not a lot of difference between recommending helmet use and it being mandatory. So the RSA have it wrong too - really !

Everyone out of step except my Johnny !

The RSA like to shift the potential blame away from motorists - that's why they make such a big deal about helmets, hi-viz and my own favourite bit of their advice to cyclists.....

....don’t get into shouting matches with motorists;

......as well as other nuggets of wisdom that suggest it's the more vulnerable road user's fault if they get ploughed by a car or other motor vehicle.

That_Guy

Was walking across the road on O'Connell Street towards Abbey Street. Lights are green for pedestrians and this fella on a bike comes speeding by, is inches away from slamming into me and my girlfriend.

Meanwhile a Garda just stands there observing the whole thing.

If that was a car running a red light as pedestrians are crossing the road, you can be sure as hell he'd have done something about it then.

Instead, he swiftly attends to tourists looking for directions.

RainyDay wrote: »

So you don't see much difference between the HSE encouraging people to stop smoking, and the Government banning smoking and making it illegal then?

Not really, just a different form of singing from the same hymnsheet.

Obviously there are two different hymnsheets available in the cycling world and you and some of your buddies here are not singing from the RSA one.

What makes me so curious is the extent of the contrarian logic. Practically all the safe cycling norms are being contested.

Red lights - ok to break them, it helps traffic flow.
Helmets - can cause brain injury.
Hi Viz - can't be seen in sun light.
Any cycling misdemeanour - cars do it too.

I'm just starting to burst my sides laughing it's so ludicrous.

steamengine wrote: »

Not really, just a different form of singing from the same hymnsheet.

Tks for clarification, so just to make sure I really understand where you're coming from, you'd be reasonably happy if the Government banned smoking today? You wouldn't be bothered about how the Prohibition era in the States was the foundation of organised crime there or anything like that. You think a ban would be a good idea?

steamengine wrote: »

Obviously there are two different hymnsheets available in the cycling world and you and some of your buddies here are not singing from the RSA one.

What makes me so curious is the extent of the contrarian logic. Practically all the safe cycling norms are being contested.

Red lights - ok to break them, it helps traffic flow.
Helmets - can cause brain injury.
Hi Viz - can't be seen in sun light.
Any cycling misdemeanour - cars do it too.

I'm just starting to burst my sides laughing it's so ludicrous.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but there are no hymnsheets at all. I've never said that it's OK to break red lights. I may have noted the development in Paris where it is OK to break red lights, but I've never said that it is OK here. Some posters may have said this, and I may not agree with them, because there is no hymn sheet.

I've never said that helmets can cause brain injury. I have a huge concern about mandatory helmet laws, as they will more than likely make cycling more dangerous for the reduced number of cyclists, but I've never suggested that helmets cause injury. Other posters may have said this, and I may not agree with them, because there is no hymn sheet.

I've never said that hi-vis can't been seen in sun light. I did note that some cases arose in the UK recently where hi-vis was suspected as a contributory factor to collisions with cyclists in daylight - no more, no less. It seems that this isn't enough for you, so you exaggerate my position greatly to give yourself something to disagree with.

It's strange how you seem unable to engage or debate with the actual issues, so you prefer to back off and take broadside pot-shots instead. Pity...

diomed

Cyclists do not as a group advocate breaking traffic regulations. It is a very small minority. I have two "cars breaking red lights" on my car dashcam from the past week. It just proves that some cyclists and some car drivers break the rules.

In the last few minutes I wrote to the RSA about their bad advice to cyclists. On Sunday when getting my car NCT test I read their cyclist advice booklet. On page 2 there was terrible advice about bike size. The RSA were saying that too large or too small a bike is dangerous, then the RSA gave dangerous advice.

RainyDay wrote: »

Tks for clarification, so just to make sure I really understand where you're coming from, you'd be reasonably happy if the Government banned smoking today? You wouldn't be bothered about how the Prohibition era in the States was the foundation of organised crime there or anything like that. You think a ban would be a good idea?

Sorry to dissapoint you, but there are no hymnsheets at all. I've never said that it's OK to break red lights. I may have noted the development in Paris where it is OK to break red lights, but I've never said that it is OK here. Some posters may have said this, and I may not agree with them, because there is no hymn sheet.

I've never said that helmets can cause brain injury. I have a huge concern about mandatory helmet laws, as they will more than likely make cycling more dangerous for the reduced number of cyclists, but I've never suggested that helmets cause injury. Other posters may have said this, and I may not agree with them, because there is no hymn sheet.

I've never said that hi-vis can't been seen in sun light. I did note that some cases arose in the UK recently where hi-vis was suspected as a contributory factor to collisions with cyclists in daylight - no more, no less. It seems that this isn't enough for you, so you exaggerate my position greatly to give yourself something to disagree with.

It's strange how you seem unable to engage or debate with the actual issues, so you prefer to back off and take broadside pot-shots instead. Pity...

I don't take potshots, everything I've stated is from this thread. It's a summary of how some posts read collectively. Read down through the posts and you'll see I'm only repeating what I've read. Pity when people are debating, and it's not going their way, suddenly foul is called.

Jawgap

That_Guy wrote: »

Was walking across the road on O'Connell Street towards Abbey Street. Lights are green for pedestrians and this fella on a bike comes speeding by, is inches away from slamming into me and my girlfriend.

Meanwhile a Garda just stands there observing the whole thing.

If that was a car running a red light as pedestrians are crossing the road, you can be sure as hell he'd have done something about it then.

Instead, he swiftly attends to tourists looking for directions.

Yeah, because there's feck all else for the Guards to be doing at that junction.

No doubt if he collared the miscreant cyclist his sergeant would have been delighted to see it as a productive use of his time......

........but not have as delighted as the local dealers and junkies that infest the place would have been

An of course he would would have done something about a car running a red light while pedestrians are crossing because that's actually hazardous, instead of irritating.

rubadub wrote: »

yeah, those lads in the lancet who compare them must be clueless. I would hold the opinion of MadDog76 in much higher regard than that of Professor David Nutt...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet

Heroin is not Heineken ....... only a moron would believe they are comparable

diomed wrote: »

It is almost a mantra with car drivers
"cyclists break red lights"
"cyclists break red lights"
"cyclists break red lights"

This thread is the same flavour.
"Cyclist don't know the Rules of the Road and a theory test will prove it, unlike us impeccably behaved car drivers."

But it is still drivers who kill cyclists.

I don't think we're allowed do that ........ *fingers crossed* ........ are we?

steamengine wrote: »

I don't take potshots, everything I've stated is from this thread. It's a summary of how some posts read collectively. Read down through the posts and you'll see I'm only repeating what I've read. Pity when people are debating, and it's not going their way, suddenly foul is called.

"Everyone out of step except my Johnny !" is a broadside potshot that avoids discussion on the actual issues.

What you did was take views that you heard from different people, and pulled them all together to make your 'hymnsheet'. But you're the only one who has a hymn sheet. The rest of us just have opinions.

And just in case you missed this bit;

RainyDay wrote: »

Tks for clarification, so just to make sure I really understand where you're coming from, you'd be reasonably happy if the Government banned smoking today? You wouldn't be bothered about how the Prohibition era in the States was the foundation of organised crime there or anything like that. You think a ban would be a good idea?

Icepick

angry fat people ITT